> On 4 Mrz., 23:56, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:> > On Mar 4, 6:57 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> >> >> >> >> >> > > On 3 Mrz., 23:35, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > > > On Mar 3, 10:56 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> >> > > > > On 3 Mrz., 17:36, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > > > > > On Mar 3, 12:41 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> >> > > > > > > Why don't you simply try to find a potentially infinity set of > > > > > > > natural> > > > > > > numbers (i.e. excluding matheological dogmas like "all prime > > > > > > > numbers"> > > > > > > or "all even numbers") that is not in one single line?> >> > > > > > the potentially infinite set of every natural number> > > > > is always finite - up to every natural number.> > > > > If you don't like that> > > > > recognition, try to name a number that does not belong to a FISON.> > > > > This set is always in one line. You should understand that every> > > > > number is in and hence every FISON is a line of the list.> >> > > > Indeed, but the question is whether there is one single line of the> > > > list that contains every FISON. We know that such a line> > > > cannot be findable. There is the unfindable, variable,> > > > a different one for each person, line l_m. However, calling> > > > l_m "one single line of the list" is silly.> >> > > On the other hand, you claim> >> > Let K be a (possibly potentially infinite) set of> > lines of L. Then> >> > Every FISON of d is in a findable line of K> > iff K does not have a findable last line> > No, false quote. Every findable FIS of d is in a findable line of L> 1> 12> 123> ...,> > since L is identical with the FIS of d. (K will not improve anything.)

The above is ambiguous, at least in English, as it is not clear whether L is being compared with a single FIS of d or the collection of all of them.

L, being the list of finite initial sequences or FISs of d, is not the same thing as d itself, as d does not have any FIS as a MEMBER, but only as a finite subset or finite subsequence.

Wm has often in the past shown a blithe disregard for the distinction between being a member of a given set and a subset of that given set, and is now doing it again.

Such distinctions are important outside of WMytheology however much they are ignored within WMytheology.

> >> > WM's claim: silly> > Only for those who deny the possibility of identity for potentially> infinite sets.

Outside WMytheology there is no satisfactory set theory allowing anything like what WM calls "potentially infinite sets".> > > >> > WH's claim: not silly> > more than silly, namely a proof of unquestioning belief in nonsense.

Nowhere nearly as nonsensical as a set of naturals in which some natural does not have a successor.

> "All FIS of d are in infinitely many lines."> Wrong, since infinity does not change the condition that there are> never two or more lines of L that contain more than one single line.

While the "ALL FIS" may be a bit ambiguous it is trivially true thatEVERY FIS of d is in infinitely many lines of L ( all but finitely many of them).> > WH's claim is tantamount to the claims: "An infinite sequence of W's> contains an M" or "An infinite sequence of finite natural numbers> contains an infinite narural number".

That may be in WMytheology, but not elsewhere> > A very instructive example for the detrimental influence of matheology> on innocent pupils.

WM is the only one here known to be destructive to pupils, by forcing them to swallow lies..--